Home Latest Headlines Research Archive Reader Contributions David Icke Shop David Icke Movies

  David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > General User Name User Name c Remember Me?
d
e
f
g
Shouldn't references for claims be essential? Password Log in

Register Chat FAQ Calendar

Page 1 of 9 1 2 3 > Last »

  Thread Tools

23-03-2008, 11:32 AM   #1

krakhead Shouldn't references for claims be essential?

Forum Advisor
  I have been reading conspiracy theories/forteana/loony rants etc for over 20 years now. I am constantly amazed at
how many times a claim can be made without any evidence/further reading provided to back up the claim, yet I see a
lot of people will take these 'facts' as just that!

I find David Icke to be one of the worst offenders. Now don't get me wrong, I own most of his books, and I have found
a lot of very useful information in them +but+ - WHERE ARE THE REFERENCES!!!!!?

I have 'Global Conspiracy' with me now - a 2-and-a-bit page bibliography, that's it! I want to know where the
information is from, I want to know if the information has been taken out of context, does the provider of the original
information have some agenda that may not be immediately apparent but which I wold need to take into account when
addressing the information given etc. etc.

Surely I'm not the only one here who needs to do further research on claims for myself? Where do you guys go? Google
tends to send me around in circles, people referencing people who reference people who reference people who have no
 
references!
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dark Side Of The
Room I am in no way dismissing anyone's ideas/belief systems etc, but if a claim is made that isn't entirely subjective (I-
Posts: 9,576 found-Goddess-in-a-deep-meditative-state-and-she-told-me-to-eat-more-chocolate sort-of-thing) then surely we
must insist on referencing - lest we become the stereo-typical conspiracists who can easily be ignored because they
have not got even a semblance of evidence with which to back up their claims. "It's true man, I swear, I read it
somewhere!"

So, errr....what do you think?.......

__________________
This message brought to you by
Krakhead Inc.©
"Bringing balance to an unbalanced world"™
"You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep"
Rwy'n dy garu di

  

23-03-2008, 11:41 AM   #2

steevo
Inactive
  There is a lack of "evidence" in conspiracy research because most of the information that researches look into is kept
Join Date: Jun 2007 top secret and well hidden and is guarded to the point of killing anyone who blows the whistle.
Location: UK
Posts: 11,658
I think conspiracy researchers work the same way as detectives. They look at motive, evidence, theories. They work
on hunches (gut instinct). Scientists also work the same way.

For example 911 is widely believed to be an inside job. There is evidence, motive, theories, gut instict. But the "powers
that be" will not do a real investigation into it. I wonder why

  

23-03-2008, 11:43 AM   #3

truthseekeruk
Senior Member
  Quote:

Originally Posted by krakhead

I have been reading conspiracy theories/forteana/loony rants etc for over 20 years now. I am constantly
amazed at how many times a claim can be made without any evidence/further reading provided to back up
the claim, yet I see a lot of people will take these 'facts' as just that!

I find David Icke to be one of the worst offenders. Now don't get me wrong, I own most of his books, and I
 
have found a lot of very useful information in them +but+ - WHERE ARE THE REFERENCES!!!!!?
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: south london I have 'Global Conspiracy' with me now - a 2-and-a-bit page bibliography, that's it! I want to know where the
Posts: 195 information is from, I want to know if the information has been taken out of context, does the provider of the
original information have some agenda that may not be immediately apparent but which I wold need to take
into account when addressing the information given etc. etc.

Surely I'm not the only one here who needs to do further research on claims for myself? Where do you guys
go? Google tends to send me around in circles, people referencing people who reference people who reference
people who have no references!
 I am in no way dismissing anyone's ideas/belief systems etc, but if a claim is made that isn't entirely
subjective (I-found-Goddess-in-a-deep-meditative-state-and-she-told-me-to-eat-more-chocolate sort-of-thing)
then surely we must insist on referencing - lest we become the stereo-typical conspiracists who can easily be
ignored because they have not got even a semblance of evidence with which to back up their claims. "It's true
man, I swear, I read it somewhere!"

So, errr....what do you think?.......

You are asking for references proof? Well many references are theoretical and are based on an idea or a viewpoint. Its
rarely that references and sources are based on cold hard facts. Can you ask a Christian to prove that Jesus is real or
that "god" exists? - give me the absolute proof?

Sometimes we are guided by what we feel rather than what we can touch or label. Evidence can be falsified and any
theory or text can be manipulated to fit it to support someones viewpoint. The King James bible is a great example of
this. It was written with the sole purpose of controlling the masses.

  

23-03-2008, 11:55 AM   #4

john white
Senior Member
  As long as it swings all ways, its right to demand references (though if you havnt found them in Ickes work its becuase
you havnt looked hard enough: sorry thats how it is)

But what about the references for all the bullshit claims of the system messages? Heres one from recently that I found
really fucked up....

Quote:

from here (part quote)

 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 5,103 http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion...ie-797788.html

The Times splashed on it under the headline, "Down's syndrome bombers kill 91". The story stated firmly that
"explosives strapped to two women with Down's syndrome were detonated by remote control in crowded pet
markets". Other papers, including The Independent, felt the story had a highly suspicious smell to it. How much
could really be told about the mental condition of a woman from a human head shattered by a powerful bomb?
Reliable eyewitnesses in suicide bombings are difficult to find because anybody standing close to the bomber is
likely to be dead or in hospital.

The US military later supported the Iraqi claim that the bombers had Down's syndrome. On 10 February, they
arrested Dr Sahi Aboub, the acting director of the al Rashad mental hospital in east Baghdad, alleging that he
had provided mental patients for use by al-Qa'ida. The Iraqi Interior Ministry started rounding up beggars and
mentally disturbed people on the grounds that they might be potential bombers.

But on 21 February, an American military spokes-man said there was no evidence the bombers had Down's. Adel
Mohsin, a senior official at the Health Ministry in Baghdad, poured scorn on the idea that Dr Aboub could have
done business with the Sunni fanatics of al-Qa'ida because he was a Shia and had only been in the job a few
weeks.

A second doctor, who did not want to give his name, pointed out that al Rashad hospital is run by the
fundamentalist Shia Mehdi Army and asked: "How would it be possible for al-Qa'ida to get in there?"

Few people in Baghdad now care about the exact circumstances of the bird market bombings apart from Dr
Aboub, who is still in jail, and the mentally disturbed beggars who were incarcerated. Unfortunately, it is all too
clear that al-Qa'ida is not running out of suicide bombers. But it is pieces of propaganda such as this small
example, often swallowed whole by the media and a thousand times repeated, which cumulatively mask the
terrible reality of Iraq.

All that suffering, all for the sake of spinning a throw away headline in the western press
__________________
Free your Self and Free the World

Reclaim Consent on the Facebook group

  

23-03-2008, 12:47 PM   #5

krakhead
Forum Advisor
  Quote:

Originally Posted by truthseekeruk

You are asking for references proof? Well many references are theoretical and are based on an idea or a
viewpoint. Its rarely that references and sources are based on cold hard facts. Can you ask a Christian to
prove that Jesus is real or that "god" exists? - give me the absolute proof?

Sometimes we are guided by what we feel rather than what we can touch or label. Evidence can be falsified
and any theory or text can be manipulated to fit it to support someones viewpoint. The King James bible is a
great example of this. It was written with the sole purpose of controlling the masses.

Proof, if proof be need be? No, not looking for 'proof', not by a long chalk! Looking for, if possible, the origin of any
information given, and the search for this usually starts with referencing. I am well aware that the nature of this field
  puts paid to 'proof' on a very regular basis, but I still would like to read the article/web page/book/graffiti that the
Join Date: Dec 2007 information was gleaned from - it may, as I have said, help me put the information in a broader, more useful context.
Location: Dark Side Of The
Room I feel that gut-instinct should definitely be used to help guide anyone through this priasmic mine-field of information,
Posts: 9,576
but the more sources that are accessed, the better, surely?

Quote:

Originally Posted by john white

As long as it swings all ways, its right to demand references (though if you havnt found them in Ickes work its
becuase you havnt looked hard enough: sorry thats how it is)

But what about the references for all the bullshit claims of the system messages?

Please point them out to me, surely, if I have to 'find' them then they're not properly referenced?

And there do appear to be lots of bullshit references for whichever subject you decide to try and study, but does that
make all references bullshit? Shouldn't I be allowed to read these references, their origins etc. and decide for myself?
__________________
This message brought to you by
Krakhead Inc.©
"Bringing balance to an unbalanced world"™
"You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep"
Rwy'n dy garu di

  

23-03-2008, 01:02 PM   #6

seanie
Senior Member
  if you look at the last few pages of the each chapter you find his references

 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Eire
Posts: 324

  

23-03-2008, 01:29 PM   #7

krakhead
Forum Advisor
  Quote:

Originally Posted by seanie

if you look at the last few pages of the each chapter you find his references

Then the (insert your favourite world domination group here) have removed them from my copy of Global Conspiracy!
OMG! They know where I live!! And have erasers!

OK - I have got myself out of my comfy chair, disturbing dogs in the process (oh, the sacrifices I have to make!) and
have gone upstairs to look at a book other than Global Conspiracy - you are correct, in part - opening a page at
random I found the reference - 34. The Great Pyramid Mystery. -now, to me, that is in no way an acceptable
reference!

  There are some 'acceptable' references there (and I am judging what is acceptable by the referencing I was expected
Join Date: Dec 2007 to provide in University), but, considering the claims being made, frankly, I demand more! I want to be able to search
Location: Dark Side Of The out these claims in a more scientific manner. I still don't see this as too much to ask. Or for author's of books, forum
Room
post's etc. to be more honest and say that some 'facts' as they see them are, in fact, conclusions from their own
Posts: 9,576
research.
__________________
This message brought to you by
Krakhead Inc.©
"Bringing balance to an unbalanced world"™
"You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep"
Rwy'n dy garu di

  

23-03-2008, 02:12 PM   #8

elysiumfire
Senior Member
  Hi There,

I agree with Krakhead's position on the supplementation of references to accompany the main body of information. I
think references are an essential ally in the process of discerning the factual basis of the text. Without there being a
provided avenue for one to conduct one's own research into claims made, one is left open to a counter-claim that one
  is being manipulated just as much by the 'whistleblower' as by the so-called secret cabals.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 452 It is about uncovering the credibility of the source, which is a necessary component in the counter-fight against the
obsfucation and manipulation presented to the masses as fact. Intuition and gut-instinct are fine for making leaps from
one uncorroborated fact to another, to see how they connect, but ultimately, such self-evidences need to have their
context correctly shown through disclaimary explanation. This alerts the reader to a claim's uncorroborated status, but
 justifies its inclusion: if 'A' = 'B' and 'B' = '?': then 'A' = '?'; without showing B's connection to '?', one cannot disclose A's
connection to '?', so it is essential for one's argument that B's connection to '?' be given as much uncorroborated
credible probability as possible...hence the need for references. The actual information being given is always only as
credible as the source's medium through which it is supplied.

Best wishes

  

23-03-2008, 02:24 PM   #9

krakhead
Forum Advisor
  Quote:

Originally Posted by elysiumfire

I agree with Krakhead's position on the supplementation of references to accompany the main body of
information.

w00t!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by elysiumfire

This alerts the reader to a claim's uncorroborated status, but justifies its inclusion: if 'A' = 'B' and 'B' = '?': then
'A' = '?'; without showing B's connection to '?', one cannot disclose A's connection to '?', so it is essential for
one's argument that B's connection to '?' be given as much uncorroborated credible probability as
  possible...hence the need for references.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dark Side Of The
Room
Posts: 9,576
erm....what he said!
__________________
This message brought to you by
Krakhead Inc.©
"Bringing balance to an unbalanced world"™
"You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep"
Rwy'n dy garu di

  

23-03-2008, 02:26 PM   #10

quest
Senior Member
  You make a good point in terms of the many people who have failed to provide adequate references on such things over
the years.

One of the recent threads on here, William Cooper's last broadcast, gives a great example of this with regard to Alex
Jone's noisy polemic that, conveniently, obliterates references (if they ever existed in the first place) by a wall of sound
that even Phil Spector would find hard to replicate.

As you may have seen, Cooper's overview of Alex Jone's 'style' has helpfully been posted up as 6 youtube videos in #30
of the thread which links comments by eternal spirit, astralburger and thetonic:

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showp...7&postcount=30

Overall, I feel that Icke makes more of an effort than most to provide references*. However, David Irving puts everyone
to shame, his indexing / bibliographic skills are awesome!

* As you'll know, Icke's latest book has a 2+ pages bibliography with literally tonnes of other source material
throughout. Linking to a recent discussion on the amount of daily work he puts in, it could even be said that his two-
fingered approach speaks volumes!
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 260

  

Page 1 of 9 1 2 3 > Last »

Bookmarks

Digg del.icio.us StumbleUpon Google

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Posting Rules

You may not post new threads

You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump
Forum Rules     General 6 Go

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:03 AM.
David Icke Website - Archive - Top